The problem with his comment, for me, and why I wouldn't XP it (despite agreeing with you on most things) is that he appears to be suggesting that prior to the 3E/4E, D&D didn't have rules where the PCs got to tell the DM what to do, that it was always "mother may I".
That's completely untrue, of course.
D&D absolutely DID have those rules. They were just strictly for people who could cast spells.
<snip>
Final bit of icing on the cake is Libramarian talking about how D&D is a "social game" and thus no-one should be engaging in "power fantasy escapism", but that's nonsensical in the context of what's being said, because in 1/2/3E, anyone playing a Mage and getting past about level 9, got to engage in "power fantasy escapism" pretty mucha ll the time, and I have no doubt that, even with their reductions in power, 5E casters will continue to be able to engage in "power fantasy escapism".
I don't dissent from any of this.
I don't necessarily agree with [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] on this, or on other things - and Libramarian often doesn't agree with me - but I like Libramarian's frank characterisations of classic D&D play.
I also suspect that Libramarian doesn't play at name level, thereby avoiding some of the issues with high-level mages.
in 4E, I didn't go on the run, as a DM, I went on the attack. It was the first edition where I could unveil my full powers.
<snip>
In 4E, with it's balanced encounters, and the PCs ALL able to dictate what happened a lot of the time, I could suddenly go flat out, go tactical, try to win in a way which would have likely wiped the PCs out in earlier editions. That was huge fun for me.
I like the bit where she/he says " I feel that at some point the purpose for the rules in D&D changed from “helping the DM put pressure on the players” to “helping the players put pressure on the DM”." I guess it reminds me of the thing I like about 3rd and especially 4th ed: rules and mechanics that as a player I can reliably use to influence the game. But also 4th ed upped the ante (and complexity, obviously) for all parties, with the types of powers that monsters that 4th ed put at the disposal of DMs in combat, and in other circumstances through skill challenges, etc.
This is what I was trying to get at in my comments under the quote from Libramarian: I think that "modern" games, including 4e, give the GM different techniques for putting pressure on the players. Because players have reliable mechanical resources not just for engaging the gameworld, but for tackling conflicts in the gameworld, the GM can frame and then push those conflicts without being "adversarial" in the traditional sense.
the game's math informs adventures and directs the storytelling.
I think this is definitely true for 4e. But my sense from the Libramarian comment I posted upthread, plus [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] in this thread, is that there is an approach to classic D&D which denies it. In this approach, the "storytelling" unfolds by free roleplaying, and the dice only come out if the free roleplaying has broken down. (At least on the player side. The GM might be using dice to determine reactions, roll wandering monsters, etc.)
I've never played in this other (non-maths) style, even though I started playing in 1982, because it emphasises exploration over conflict whereas I've always been more interested in conflict than exploration. Eg the idea that is "good play" to avoid fights doesn't work for me, because I tend to find that style boring at the table.
Thinking to look behind the wardrobe. No.
The old way of searching involved interacting with the setting.
<snip>
The modern game that skips the "boring" stuff revolves almost exclusively with interacting with the mechanics.
I am not very interested in exploration, and not at all interested in searchind wardrobes. Wake me up when the game restarts! The sort of gameworld fiction I find interesting is the passions, politics, alliances, mythic history etc that underlies and explains the NPCs and gods of the setting.
But even then, for me the main goal of play isn't for the players (via their PCs) just to learn this stuff. The goal is for the players to engage with it and change it. Which requires resolution mechanics.
The idea that engaging the mechanics doesn't involve interacting with the setting is foreign to me, for just the reason that [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] gives in the post of his I quoted above.
How much you tilt towards player skill vs character skill is a dial
The "modern" style of RPGing that underpins 4e (at least as played by those who see its affinities to even more modern games like HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP, Dungeon World etc) doesn't distinguish these two things. Part of the skill of being a player is to leverage the ingame situation so as to bring your mechanical resources to bear upon it.
For instance, if your PC is good at Intimidation but not Diplomacy then part of the skill of playing is learning how to take advantage of angry, scared PCs rather than friendly ones. (And also knowing when it is sensible to use your weaker skill because you
need the NPC in question to be friendly.)
He never says that you can't be clever, he says that the game doesn't reward that. Which is true. DM's reward clevering thinking. Or rather, good DMs reward clever thinking. The game however does not have rules for clever thinking.
Maybe we have different criteria for what counts as clever thinking. I can't speak for 3E, which I've not played very much, but I find 4e does reward clever thinking. In skill challenges, players need to find clever ways to bring their skills to bear upon the fictional situation. In a combat, players need to find clever ways to synergise the PCs' range of abilities.
Also, the relative universality of the resolution mechanics (via skill challenges and p 42) means that there is no pressure on the GM to block clever ideas because there is no mechanical way to give effect to them.
